Nuclear optimism challenged by reality

The Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) says that ‘New nuclear plants can form a major part of an affordable low carbon transition in the UK with potential roles for both large nuclear and small modular reactors'. However, while Small Modular Reactors ‘could be cost-effective’, more work was needed on them, and it said that its ‘evidence base on energy system planning indicates the best way forward is for the UK to seek to secure the delivery of a programme of contemporary large GW light water reactors’. Although it warns that ‘an inability to “get match fit” and demonstrate cost reductions will result in other options - such as renewables - becoming more prevalent in a future UK energy system.’ http://www.eti.co.uk/news/new-nuclear-power-projects-need-to-evolve-if-nuclear-energy-is-to-play-a-significant-role-in-a-uk-low-carbon-energy-system-according-to-the-eti

The latter outcome may well be likely, judging by what’s actually happening, with the economics of the current range of new nuclear plants looking dire. The lifetime cost (to consumers) of EDF’s 3.2GW Hinkley European Pressurised-water Reactor (EPR) in Somerset has been put at £50bn: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hinkley-nuclear-plant-edf-uk-households-energy-power-somerset-government-a7849216.html  
While, with its EPR programme in a big mess, EDF’s profits have fallen 3.7%: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-EDF-posts-3.7-fall-in-profit-amid-lower-output-31071701.html

It doesn’t look likely to get any better for them, with, after faults were found in the reactor casing of the half built and much delayed Flamanville EPR, the French nuclear safety regulator asking EDF to examine the manufacturing records of all components produced by the Avera Creusot forge in use at its operating nuclear power plants: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-EDF-ordered-to-check-component-records-1708174.html

Meanwhile, back in the UK, Ofgem, the energy regulator, has slapped down National Grid’s plan to spend £840m to link the new plant to the grid, claiming it could be 20% cheaper. There are also new Euratom doubts, which could impact on Hinkley and the overall UK nuclear programme: http://www.edie.net/news/11/Hinkley-C--Labour-warns-of--potential-timebomb--of-quitting-Euratom

Although few now see it as economically viable, Hinkley is the furthest ahead of the new nuclear projects planned for the UK, with site work already underway. The others are still just proposals and , if anything, they are facing even larger problems. For example, the Horizon consortium is backing the Hitachi-GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) projects at Wylfa (Anglesey) and Oldbury (Glos)- Hitachi has already built 4 in Japan. In a maybe poorly timed Daily Telegraph promotional Feature sponsored by Hitachi, it was claimed that UK power demand is rising, supply falling and the ABWR was the way ahead: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/social-innovation/nuclear-energy/

Well, actually, UK demand is falling, many new renewable projects are coming on-line, the ABWRs in Japan are still off-line, post-Fukushima (which involved old BWRs), and ABWR reliability has been challenged: www.plux.co.uk/hitachi-abwr-one-of-the-least-reliable-in-the-world/ 
Good try Hitachi! But not very convincing: although, with Hitachi at one stage looking like they might back-out, to keep the Wylfa show on the road, the Japanese government is saying it would offer loan guarantees. They are clearly desperate to get export deals to keep the industry going, since they can’t build any in Japan: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Policy-Politics/Hitachi-UK-reactors-to-get-full-Japanese-loan-insurance  
It has been reported that the UK government may also help with loans, in a combined £20bn package, although that has not been confirmed: http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201801110057.html and http://www.ecowatch.com/nuclear-plants-uk-2527676949.html

Meanwhile, with the plan by (financially bust) Westinghouse/Toshiba for an AP1000 at  Moorside (Cumbria) officially ‘paused’,  South Korea may step in the finance breach: http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/Korean-firm-in-competition-over-Cumbrias-new-nuclear-reactors-789e0cdd-490c-4f46-abb9-0625f8e5bf90-ds 
And also maybe at Wylfa: www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/koreans-target-10bn-welsh-nuclear-plant-s5lswf9vh      

S. Korea is not looking to export its own nuclear technology to the UK, it’s just offering finance, possibly since, at home, it’s backing off nuclear, with this lurid nuclear disaster movie doing the rounds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMsE1pRvYdc

The furthest away from reality is the project proposed for Bradwell in Essex. China says it’s confident of getting permission to build one of its own plants there, using its HPR1000 design: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-08/26/c_136557541.htm

The UK government is no doubt delighted to have all these offers of money and technology from overseas, with UK consumers being expected to shell out for whatever it all ends up costing and taxpayers carrying the can if it goes wrong. Clearing the decks on that, a new  UK Nuclear Accident Insurance regime has been agreed: http://knowledge.freshfields.com/en/Global/r/1545/nuclear_liability_regime__major_changes_for_the_uk_regime

It’s better than before, with operator liability raised to £1.2bn, but, to put that in perspective, Fukushima’s total costs have officially been put at £150bn, and it could be very much more: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/01/national/real-cost-fukushima-disaster-will-reach-¥70-trillion-triple-governments-estimate-think-tank

Globally, nuclear power is in retreat, with China, Russia and India being the main surviving backers- the USA seems to be out of the race: http://e360.yale.edu/features/industry-meltdown-is-era-of-nuclear-power-coming-to-an-end 

However, the nuclear industry lobby is still strong, for ever talking about expansion: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Nuclear-capacity-could-more-than-double-by-2050-says-IAEA-0808174.html 
It is buttressed by handful of lobbyists, in pro-nuclear groups like Environmental Progress, Energy for Humanity and Bright New World: http://www.theenergycollective.com/mzconsulting/2411298/advocating-nuclear-power-time-right

And some analysts, like the ETI above, still have hopes that new nuclear technology will eventually come to the rescue. There are a few much-hyped Generation IV/Small Modular Reactor research projects around in the USA, although one recently got its extravagant claims shot down: http://www.technologyreview.com/s/603731/nuclear-energy-startup-transatomic-backtracks-on-key-promises/ 
It may take time, but others may do better. Well good luck to them, for example working with fiercely radioactive thorium decay byproducts dissolved in highly corrosive molten flouride salt at 700 degrees C. See this demolition of James Hansen’s arguments for Gen IV/SMRs: http://reneweconomy.com.au/james-hansens-generation-iv-nuclear-fallacies-and-fantasies-70309/  
It is certainly far from clear that, even if successfully developed, SMRs will be cheap: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/07/power-mini-nuclear-plants-cost-more-hinkley-point-c

By contrast, renewables like wind and solar, look so much easier and safer- with no radioactive waste/leak/accident risks. And no CO2 from reactor fuel mining and processing activities: http://www.frugeo.co.uk/TYPESET_GLS4_Paper-1.pdf And globally, costs are continually falling: https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/the-renewable-energy-auction-revolution/

Unsurprisingly then, that’s the way most of the world is going: https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook  
It makes you wonder why the UK amongst others is still clinging on to nuclear… Some say, with no other explanation seemingly available, it’s just to keep the technical capacity alive, since that’s needed for the nuclear weapons and the nuclear submarine programme: http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-accounts-committee/hinkley-point-c/written/70983.html 
Surely it can’t be as simple as that? Though it does seem to be an important background issue most places: http://energypost.eu/nuclear-power-weapons-and-national-security/ So that may well be an underlying technocratic driver. Although, as ever, the technocrats are not getting it all their way. Nuclear programmes continue to come up against strong local opposition, as witness the huge post Fukushima anti-nuclear demonstrations Asia, for example involving 100,000 people at one stage in Taiwan. Even in the allegedly more pro-nuclear UK, current BEIS polling suggests that only around 35% support nuclear power and a YouGov poll found that 62% of respondents would be unhappy living within five miles of a Small Modular Reactor.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/18/most-britons-dislike-prospect-living-mini-nuclear-station

If you want more on nuclear power, see my book for the Institute of Physics, which looks at nuclear, past present and future: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nuclear-Power-Past-Present-Future/dp/1681745046 and the latest independent annual Nuclear Industry Status review, which updates the increasingly gloomy story: http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/